The Tao of Anarchy: There is no God. There is no State. They are all superstitions that are established by the power-hunger psychopaths to divide, rule, and enslave us. It's only you and me, we are all true and real existence though in one short life. That is, We all are capable to freely interact with one another without coercion from anyone. We all are capable to take self-responsibility to find ways to live with one another in liberty, equality, harmony, and happiness before leaving this world forever. We all were born free and equal among all beings on this planet. We are not imprisoned in and by a place with a political name just because we were born there by chance. We are not chained to a set of indoctrinated beliefs that have been imposed upon us by so-called traditions. This Planet is home to all of us. No one owns it. We share the benefits from and responsibility to this Earth. We pledge no oath, no allegiance to no one; submit to no authority. We are all free and equal. The only obligation we all must undertake constantly with consistency is to respect the same freedoms and rights of others.

The Chagos Islands Case, WikiLeaks and Justice

The Chagos Islands Case, WikiLeaks and Justice

Let this be a
lesson to its detractors, doubters and stuff shirts of the secrecy
establishment: the documents sourced from WikiLeaks can have tangible,
having significant value for ideas and causes. They can advance matters
of the curious; they can confirm instances of the outrageous and they
can add to those fabulous claims that might change history. While Julian Assange
and the publishing organisation have been sniped at for being, at
various instances, dangerous, unduly challenging and even less than
significant (odd no?), its documentary legacy grows.

Nowhere has there
been a tangible demonstration of this than the issue of litigation.
With gradual but relentless commitment, advocates and activists have
been introducing documents obtained from WikiLeaks into court
proceedings. The judicial benches have not always been consistent on
how best to cope with the adducing of such matters. Would, for
instance, a document obtained improperly still be relevant in
proceedings? Or should be excluded on grounds of confidentiality? This
state of affairs sits oddly with reality, but then again, the law is
more often a fiction that resists reality.

The technological
imperative here should be obvious. Such documents lose their factual
character of confidence the moment they appear on the website, however
obtained. Millions have the means to access it, even if, legally, the
document might retain a certain character. In this regard, state
officials remain jealous of their secrets and their correspondence, keen
to ensure that prying publics are kept in the necessary dark.

The case of
removing the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago is a particularly
ugly one, deeply mired in political considerations and diplomatic
intrigue. The islands, located some 1,800 kilometres from Mauritius,
became part of an arrangement between Britain and the United States, the
latter particularly keen to acquire a military base in the area, the
former keen to be in the good books as Greek advisor to all-powerful
Rome.

In 1965, with cards
firmly kept to their chests, British diplomats disaggregated the Chagos
Islands from Mauritius. Mauritius, in turn, received four million
pounds for the favour. This underhanded arrangement became the prelude
for the removal of all 3,000 occupants from the Islands. The UK
Permanent Under-Secretary overseeing the sordid business was intent
on being brutal, suggesting in 1966 with all the crudeness of an ethnic
cleanser that Britain be “tough about this. The object of the exercise
was to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no
indigenous population except seagulls who have not yet got a Committee
(the Status of Women does not cover the rights of Birds).” BRITAIN AND THE EMPIRE: Falklands and Chagos – A Tale of Two Islands

The hand written
note appended by D.A. Greenhill on August 24, 1966 on the same document
was filled with lashings of vulgarity: “along with the birds go some few
Tarzans or Men Fridays” who had to be moved on. Once done, “we must be
very tough and a submission is being done accordingly.” What followed
was a forced eviction of the inhabitants and the construction of the US
base on Diego Garcia.

This nastiness
proved perennial. The Chagossians took up their claims of return,
including unacknowledged fishing rights, badgering the UK government
repeatedly in their efforts. One ploy adopted by the good officials in
Her Majesty’s Government was its attempt to turn the area of claim,
known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, into a marine park or
reserve.

This is where
WikiLeaks proved particularly valuable, with cables clearly outlining
the improper and frustrating motive of UK officials. This wily and
heinous move, went one summary on May 15, 2009 of a discussion conducted by US political counsellor Richard Mills
at the Foreign Office, would make it “difficult if not impossible, to
pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos
Archipelago were a marine reserve.” The assent of the United States
would also be required – a mere formality.

That cable in
question became the subject of a legal claim by the Chagossians that
wound its way through the British legal system, culminating in two
approvals of the use of WikiLeaks cables, the first being the Court of Appeal in 2014, and the second being before the UK Supreme Court in 2018. The latter duly acknowledged
that the principle of inviolability would normally “make it
impermissible to use such documents or copies in a domestic court of the
host country” except in extraordinary circumstances or instances of a
waiver by the mission state. In this case, the cable in question did not
form part of the London Embassy archive, meaning it could be used in
court proceedings. Even more significantly, the very fact that it came
into the public domain “even in circumstances where the document can be
shown to have been wrongly extracted from the mission archive” destroyed
its inviolability.

Such proceedings
formed part of a momentum that saw the UK referred to the International
Court of Justice via vote in the United Nations in 2017. Many European
states that might have voted for the UK decided to abstain, a result of
Brexit fever. The ICJ duly found
that “the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully
completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following
the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.” Accordingly, the UK was
“under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos
Archipelago as rapidly as possible.”

The UK Foreign Office has been snooty in response.
This island dot continues to irk, worry, and gets under the skin of the
establishment. “This is an advisory opinion, not a judgment.” Besides,
“The defence facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory help to
protect people here in Britain and around the world from terrorist
threats, organised crime and piracy.” When in a tight corner, always
aspire to universal relevance and importance. In the meantime, the
fortunes of the Chagossians, and international opinion, have turned.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark
was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures
at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com